Carlin

Carlin v. City of Palm Springs

Good Law
14 Cal. App. 3d 706·1971 Cal. App. LEXIS 1028·92 Cal. Rptr. 535
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 26, 1971Civ. 9833California3,062 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kerrigan, J.

Plaintiffs have owned and operated a small hotel in Palm Springs for many years. They have done business under the fictitious name of “650 Hotel” since 1956. In 1967 the City Council of Palm Springs adopted a comprehensive sign ordinance. One of the provisions of the ordinance prohibits, in effect, the use of an outside business sign that makes reference to prices or rates. Under the ordinance “rate signs” are deemed to be public nuisances per se.

Several years prior to the enactment of the ordinance, the plaintiffs attached to the main entrance of their hotel, fronting on North Palm Canyon Drive, a permanent sign displaying the official name of the business as “6B0 Hotel.” Subsequent to the adoption of the sign ordinance, the city officials responsible for enforcement of the ordinance determined that plaintiffs’ sign was a “rate sign” and ordered its removal.

Plaintiffs appealed unsuccessfully to the council for relief from the removal order. Following the exhaustion of their administrative remedies, they filed an action for injunction and declaratory relief against the city and several officers and department heads thereof. The purpose of the action was to secure a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.